Potentially Shortened Timeline?

M

moreorless

Gondor
Does anything else think we may see shortening of the time between Smaug's attack on the Lonely Mountain/Dale and Bilbo's adventure? Jackson does afterall have a bit of history with this in LOTR and I can see potentially benefits for it in the Hobbit.

If for example the invasion happens 20-30 years before the Hobbit then the potential is there for Bard to actually have been present in Dale as a child when Smaug attacked. That would have the advanatge that not only could he relate those events to Bilbo as a flashback but that his character would have an even stronger motivation/knowledge with reguards Smaug.

Granted it would obviously mess around with the timeline of the Dwaves story post Smaug but in terms of any events that might be covered two or three decades is more than enough time for the Dwave/Goblin Wars and Thrains capture to take place during.
 
Last edited:
on other threads for a long time now and I tend to agree with you. In fact, I reckon that only about a dozen years will have passed since Smaug's attack. Thorin, with his oaken shield, apparently at the Battle of Azanulbizar, looks no younger than he does when he arrives at Bag End. Shortening the time line would allow for shots of a slightly younger Thorin - still played by Armitage and not by some teenager - escaping from the Mountain with Thror and Thrain. Plus, some of the other dwarves could be shown without the hassle of making them look a lot younger. Perhaps Thorin can be shown with a much longer beard that he cuts off in shame. I'm not a long-beard enthusiast but I would find this quite satisfying and would explain the intensity of Thorin's feelings.

Also, with such a shortened time-line, we could see an only slightly younger Bard escaping from Dale with his baby son who would be a teenager, as is the actor who is playing Bain, by the time of Thorin's return. Can anyone tell me anything about Bard's wife? If she's just not mentioned, perhaps PJ might have her being killed in Dale which would partly explain Bard's "grim" nature and his enthusiasm to equip the dwarves for their venture.
 
We know that Dwarves are long-lived (except when compared to Elves and Ents). I don't see any reason to muck with the timeline here.
 
would be detrimental to the story of the Hobbit. Historical depth is a vital part of of Tolkien's works. There is no need to compress the history of Smaug's attack and occupation of Erebor.
 
Everytime a timeline is shortened/compressed, the story loses that illusion of depth that is so central to Tolkien's storytelling.

And yes, the compression in FOTR damaged that sense. This is one of core reasons why, IMO, PJ's films don't quite feel like Tolkien's, even if a lot of the details are right...
 
the other post of mine mysteriously disappeared, so I'll repeat what I wrote... I don't think it would be detrimental to the strory of the Hobbit if they compress that story line. Most of all, that stuff isn't even part of the story as told in the book! The Hobbit - at its core - is about something entirely different.

if they should chose to compress the time lines of the historical background, the sense of "history" would still not disappear entirely. it would suffice for the purpose of the movies. the depth in the book would be greater, but the change would have no real effect, certainly nothing that could be called "detrimental" in my opinion.

i think life is a lot easier if one considers these movies just as commercials for the book. keep in mind that most of the people who see these films (including LOTR) were/are confronted with tolkien's world for the first time. and I think they are pretty damn successful introductions. so it's all a matter od perspective. if you expect adaptations that are 100% true to the books you only set yourself up for disappointment. with a different approach it's perhaps easier to enjoy the movies for what they are.

disclaimer: nothing in this post is meant to offend anyone, least of all the mods!
 
I believe that the history of the Dwarf Kingdom Under the Mountain as well as the history of Dale and of Esgaroth were all part of the Hobbit and not a side track that can be compressed or distorted without doing damage to the tale. The Hobbit at its core is about Bilbo & 13 Dwarves quest to regain the treasure of The Kingdom under the Mountain and what happens to Bilbo along the way. This is a great story but it became so much more when the author chose to set the adventure in Middle-earth with its vast and ancient history. I hope these two movies do justice to both aspects of Tolkien's little book and do not turn out to be just commercials for the book in stead.
 
Most of the back story to TH happens in the Appendices or elsewhere. It helps first-timers to get their heads around the story if the time-line is compressed and I don't mind sacrificing the purist side of my nature if this means that more people go out and read the book and then go onto LotR because they haven't felt confused. For instance, if we have a flash-back of Dale burning and see Girion killed and his wife and son escape, people will wonder who they are. But if we see Bard's wife killed and then Bard escape with his baby son whom we see as a teenager later, this gives viewers a time span they can understand and a couple of people from Dale that they can relate to later on in the film.
 
leaving out all the rich history is VERY detrimental to the story. There are events that fall into place over the course of 170 years to bring everything in line with the story of the hobbit. Dale needs to be over grown and desolate, 20 years just isn't enough time have the type of decay to create the ruins of Dale. I mean it was almost 100 years since Gandalf discovered the Necromancers true identity (2850 - 2941) and the white council acting upon that info. The history is an important part of the story PJ obviously wants to tell since he is including the White Council most of which events including them, other than the attack on DolGuldur, happen many years before the hobbit story. Shortening the timeline also shortens the amount of time that Gollum has the ring by 150 years as well. I don't see where changing the timeline will help anything [crazy]... other than screw up what Tolkien wrote

I realize there will never be a 100% faithful adaptation and I'm fine with that. [;)] But they need to at least TRY and keep the backstory that is important to the story at hand. and cutting years out of what has happened or is happening isn't the way to do it. Personally I think PJ dropped the ball by not including the 17 year gap in FOTR. where as a simple line between Gandalf and Frodo mentioning it being 17 years would have kept Tolkiens timeline.

I will say that people need to learn to separate the 2 mediums some people do have issues doing that but there is no reason for the film makers to butcher what Tolkien wrote either. Most everything in the Hobbit book would work on screen. I'll just reserve judgement of the films till I see them. if they're good they're good if they are lacking then so be it.
 
However, we know that Bard eventually takes a wife and has at least one child (Bain). So, establishing them now, in this film, helps to broaden Bard's characterization and takes advantage of the compressed film timeline between the event of The Hobbit and the War of the Ring (the missing time following Bilbo's birthday/farewell party).
 
Everytime a timeline is shortened/compressed, the story loses that illusion of depth that is so central to Tolkien's storytelling.

And yes, the compression in FOTR damaged that sense. This is one of core reasons why, IMO, PJ's films don't quite feel like Tolkien's, even if a lot of the details are right...
Click to expand...


Actually I'd say the reverse, more of the reason the films feel a little different is that the finer details reguarding location and history(espeically the sense of layers of history in Eraidor) arent present and Tolkiens exact dating is dropped. The lack of a 17 year gap in Frodo's story does I'd say also play into the changes Jackson made to his character.

If we were talking about compressing the gap between Smaug's attack and the quest down to say a year or two I'd agree it would be a negative but really what takes place in the story that needs more than 20-30 years? thats enough time for the events between the two to happen phyiscally, for laketown to be built and perhaps most importantly for Thorin and the Dwaves treasure lust to have built up though homesickness rather than just coming across as greed.
 
Which would be sad.

And it would make Thorin's apparent younger age maybe more likely.......

hmmm...
30 years of rich Dwarven history would also be wiped out....[unsure]


He might do it, but we have no way of telling ATM.....

:)
 
tiz·zy (t
ibreve.gif
z
prime.gif
emacr.gif
)n. pl. tiz·zies Slang A state of nervous excitement or confusion; a dither.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tizzy
 
Let me preface by saying I have not the slightest investment in changing timelines but I don't think your examples make the case here for me.

You suggest that a "screw up" or a "butcher"ing is on the cards but then offer a couple of specific examples: how over grown Dale is and whether Gollum had the ring for less time. Are we really saying that we think these things, if changed, could "butcher" the story? I suppose I always try to imagine how I would feel if the change had cropped up in a revised edition of the book(s) and I just can't imagine feeling anything approaching the sort of feeling I would associate with what your language suggests.

Personally I go along with Tolkien - stories are robust little creatures and can happily take changes of detail.

LR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top